Biblical Inerrancy: A Barrier to The Public Acceptance of Science?

A presentation created to look at whether there is any truth to the idea that religion, in particular Biblical Inerrancy (Christian Fundamentalism), is a barrier to the Public's Acceptance of
…

A presentation created to look at whether there is any truth to the idea that religion, in particular Biblical Inerrancy (Christian Fundamentalism), is a barrier to the Public's Acceptance of Scientific Knowledge.

Transcript

1.
Issues in Science and The Public:
Biblical Inerrancy: An Inevitable Barrier to the Public
Acceptance of Science
Author: Reginald V. Finley Sr.
04/18/2012, Revised 01/27/2014

2.
Introduction


Literature in the field tends to lean more on ways to improve the
Public Understanding of Science. (PUS)
Not so much on the Public Acceptance of Science (PAS)
* Major Exception: Evolutionary Biology
Why?



Other sciences not as threatening to religious
sensitivities? Possibly.
Students 5-12 are passing tests on evolution. This is great! They are
understanding it. But are they accepting it?
Science, in General, is accepted by the public, with Exceptions.

3.
Human Evolution



Conflicts arise from curriculum discussing Human
Evolution.
These conflicts interfere with PUS and more so, PAS.
Literature will focus on Human Evolution as being a
major issue affecting the PUS and PAS.

4.
Understanding, but Not Accepting




According to a study by Joseph O. Baker, 2012. 69% of
respondents report that they can see compatibility
between science and religion.
Yet, in a study released by Miller et. al, in 2006, (next
slide) shows that Evolution (which is science) is
disbelieved by 60% of the American population.
Latest Study(ARIS, 2008) shows that 76% of Americans
identify as Christian.
What conclusions can be drawn from these analyses?

6.
Accepting Evolutionary Science
In Joseph Baker's study: If the survey question was worded
differently, would it have revealed a different result?
EX: “Biological evolution states that humans evolved over
millions of years from ape-like ancestors, do you see a
conflict between what science presents concerning
human origins and your religious faith?”
Previous polling data hints that between 60 and 75% of the
respondents would answer, yes. Thus, there appears to
be a conflict between science and religion.

7.
But is it really religion?




Mano Singham argues that the barriers to PUS
and PAS are not the theological and
scientific issues at hand but rather, they are
the public discourses surrounding them.
Singham discusses that these may be
perhaps differing spheres of knowledge that
are being forced to intersect.
Elite Religious and The Elite Science Types.
Those is the middle are squeezed out of the
conversation as the Elites tend to be the
loudest.
Image Source: Case Western Reserve
University: www.case.edu, 2014

8.
Is it Just The Dialogue?
John Scopes was
convicted in 1925
for teaching
evolution.
“I actually skipped the part
about evolution.” – John
Scopes

9.
Darren Sherkat

Researcher Darren E. Sherkat (2011) conducted a multivariate
analysis on data retrieved from a 2006 General Social Survey
(N = 1,780), which included a 13-point examination of
scientific facts and reasoning. The data lead him to conclude
that those respondents which lean more toward religious
fundamentalism/biblical inerrancy, were significantly
impacted concerning their level of “basic scientific literacy”.

10.
David Masci, 2007

“When asked what they would do if scientists were to
disprove a particular religious belief, nearly two-thirds
(64%) of people say they would continue to hold to what
their religion teaches rather than accept the contrary
scientific finding, according to the results of an October
2006 Time magazine poll. Indeed, in a May 2007 Gallup
poll, only 14% of those who say they do not believe in
evolution cite lack of evidence as the main reason
underpinning their views; more people cite their belief in
Jesus (19%), God (16%) or religion generally (16%) as
their reason for rejecting Darwin's theory.” (Masci, 2007).

11.
Seeing does not equal believing!
In 2008, Dr. Cavallo, and her colleagues published, “Seeing
may not mean believing: Examining students'
understandings & beliefs in evolution”
Her study covered ninth-grade students enrolled into 3
biology classes and collected data concerning their
opinions about the nature of science and evolution
before and after the course. The results revealed that
student beliefs did not change during the course of the
instruction.

12.
Why They Are Rejecting?


As the 2007 Gallup poll has shown us, 14% of the
respondents state that the lack of evidence, is the
primary reason that the respondents stated they doubt
the veracity of evolution.
Creationist websites provide misinformation concerning
evolution which may fuel this stance.

64% say evidence is irrelevant anyway.

Will re-education even help?

13.
Opinion:
The Reward of Heaven?


Concept of The Afterlife is strong:
Culturally, Personally(Emotionally), Tradition
ally, Theologically and even
Philosophically. Most Christians can not
afford to have anything jeopardize going to
Heaven and not being with God.
Thus, we clearly see, this is not an issue of
reason, logic, and evidence, this is an issue
of maintaining the status quo of religious
dogma. God cannot be wrong, thus, the
science MUST be wrong, ipso facto.

14.
Appealing to the Gut, err Brain?
Minsu Ha et al, (2012), published a study in which he
delved into cognitive science to discover the roots of
why we have so much rejection of evolution.
Ha, argues that the studies surrounding this issue all have conflicting
data and believes that cognitive science shows us that “feels right”
emotions are what drive acceptance of a belief.
However, the study did show statistically relevant values that religion
and culture do still influence acceptance of evolution as well.

15.
Facing The Facts



There doesn't appear to be an easy solution to this
problem. Some science does clash with some religious
views. This will not change provided the fundamentalist
maintains a literal view.
Though well intentioned; those groups which seek to
appease some religious groups by informing them that
there is no conflict, are not really telling the entire story.
Based on the scientific data, there appears to be a
conflict between science and religion.

16.
Reducing the Threat?




Based on the studies presented, it does appear that as long as
science is found not to be threatening to particular groups,
that science can/will be accepted. Can this be done?
Human Evolution is a science that is threatening to religious
fundamentalists and even some liberal Christians, as some
liberals still accept uncritically the concept of a literal Garden
of Eden.
Fundamentalism and Biblical inerrancy will always conflict
with evolutionary models of human origins.
Solution: The perspectives have to change.

17.
Can We Change Their Minds?


Should we? Are they really that much a threat to the
progress of PAS?
Leave them be? It will resolve itself? ID Movement?
What can be done?

We need religious allies that can help us with PUS and
PAS. One such ally:
Dr. Kenneth Miller

18.
Dr. Kenneth Miller

Miller is a Catholic.

Professor of Biology

Textbook Author

Instrumental in Dover Case

Image Source Wikipedia, 2011

Helping squelch the voices
of the fundamentalist by
showing that one can be a
believer and still accept
evolution.
“I do not believe in a purposefully deceptive God.” - Dr.
Ken Miller (In Reference to the overwhelming evidence for
Evolution)

19.
Conclusion



The PAS appears to be affected at some of our most
basic and foundational levels. Though nothing in
Biology makes much sense without an understanding of
evolution to a Biologist; many people are perfectly fine
rejecting it and moving on.
This tells us that a new approach must be undertaken if
we are gain acceptance of the sciences.
The study by Minsu Ha also gives us some insight into
what some of those approaches may be.

20.
Conclusion - Solutions



Reginald V. Finley Sr, 2011
Science may have to become
more theologically and culturally
relevant.
Science pedagogy may have to
be modified to include much
more Socratic dialogue rather
than rote instruction, so that
students can develop that “ah
hah” moment themselves and
develop “gut” feelings about the
science being presented.
Science may have to remind the
Public that it is humble in its
approach to natural discovery.